On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 23:31 +0200, Lars Luthman wrote:
both guesses are wrong. i think it will be precise enough to say that a
company expressed what appeared to be a serious interest in leveraging
the existence of LS for its own plans. relationships changed between the
various parties, and the LS developers were left in a situation where
work they had already done might be used in ways they did not consent
to. Meanwhile, the company felt that it was the LS developers who had
failed to follow through on the agreement. i don't think its feasible to
be more precise than this.
the core point of the story is that you cannot stop other organizations
from making use of your GPL-licensed work even if you have entered into
some different kind of arrangement with them. for some people, this
represents a serious issue.